Re: ROBERT ARTHUR COOK; ULICK COLIN BIGNELL; HAROLD SHOOTER; KENNETH LEWIS TYLER; ROYCE LAWRENCE CUMMINS and GREGORY LAWRENCE WATERS And: G. CRAWFORD; G.L. SMITH; R. FAIRWEATHER; R. HEVEY; T. BOURKE; R. MASTERTON; THE PLUMBERS AND GASFITTERS EMPLOYEES' UNION OF AUSTRALIA (1982) 62 FLR 34 No. 6 of 1981 Industrial Law - Conciliation and Arbitration
COURT
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY INDUSTRIAL DIVISION Smithers(1), Keely(2) and Sheppard(3) JJ.
CATCHWORDS
Industrial Law - organisations - dismissal from office - expulsion from membership - power of federal executive to hear charges of gross misbehaviour against members of branch executive - detailed consideration of provisions of rules of organisation - whether an amendment of rules conferring on federal council power to amend rules a valid exercise of power - whether such an amendment imposed upon the membership conditions and/or restrictions which, having regard to the objects of the Act, were unreasonable - whether there was such imbalance in the representation of the membership on the organisation's federal council as to warrant the conclusion that the structure of the organisation was "undemocratic" - whether charges laid against officials in their capacity as such were able to be relied upon for the purpose of expelling them as members - whether relief should be refused on discretionary grounds - whether officials by their conduct had repudiated their contract of membership - whether any such repudiation had been accepted by the organisation - whether the officials should, by reason of their conduct, be taken to have "unilaterally resigned" their offices and membership - Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904, ss.132, 140, 141, 144, 171B, 171C, 171F and 171G.
Conciliation and Arbitration - Registered organization - Rules - Performance and observance thereof - Dismissal from office and expulsion from membership of members by federal executive - Amendment of rules - Whether mandatory procedure observed - Power given to federal council to amend rules - Whether oppressive, unreasonable or unjust - Effect of rule amendments introduced under invalid rule - Whether invalid rules validated at expiration of four years - Whether validation extended to invalidity caused by statute - Whether representation of certain branches on federal council disproportionate - Whether charges against officers in that capacity could be relied upon for purpose of expelling them as members - Whether relief should be refused on discretionary grounds - Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 (Cth), ss. 132, 140, 141, 144, 171B, 171C, 171F, 171G.
HEADNOTE
By rule nisi in Matter N.S.W. No. 19 of 1979 the appellants' members and office holders of the Plumbers and Gasfitters Employees' Union of Australia (the organization), a registered organization sought orders: (a) under s. 141 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 (the Act) that the respondents, being federal executive members, perform and observe the rules of the organization by treating as null and void certain resolutions of the executive purporting to expel from membership and dismiss from office five members of the Sydney branch being the second to sixth appellants;…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Cook v Crawford
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Cook, R.A. & Ors v. Crawford, G. & Ors [1982] FCA 133 ((1982) 62 FLR 34)
Case
[1982] FCA 133
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Cook and Crawford, along with several other officials of a branch of an organisation, appealed against their expulsion from membership and dismissal from office. The matter was before the court following an order of the Industrial Court, which had referred the case to the court under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904. The central issue before the court was the validity of the officials' expulsion from membership and dismissal from office. The court had to determine whether the federal executive had the authority to hear charges of gross misbehaviour against the branch executive members and whether the expulsion was justified under the organisation's rules.
The court meticulously examined the provisions of the organisation's rules, including an amendment conferring on the federal council the power to amend those rules. The court considered whether this amendment was a valid exercise of power and whether it imposed unreasonable conditions or restrictions on the membership. Additionally, the court assessed whether the structure of the organisation was "undemocratic" due to an imbalance in the representation of the membership on the federal council. The court also evaluated whether the charges laid against the officials in their official capacity could be relied upon for expulsion and whether any relief should be refused on discretionary grounds. Furthermore, the court examined whether the officials' conduct constituted a repudiation of their contract of membership and whether such repudiation had been accepted by the organisation.
The court concluded that the appeals should be stood over for further consideration. The reasoning behind this decision was that additional information or arguments were required to fully address the complex issues presented in the case. The appeals were to be reconsidered at a date to be fixed by the court either on its own motion or upon application by either party. The court's decision highlighted the need for a comprehensive examination of the organisation's rules and the officials' conduct to ensure a fair and just resolution of the dispute.
Orders
Orders of the court
The appeals be stood over for further consideration to a date to be fixed by the Court of its own motion or upon application by either party. The appeals be stood over for further consideration to a date to be fixed by the court of its own motion or upon application by either party.